Search

Following a partial response of first-line antidepressant therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), there is a choice to augment treatment with another agent or switch to a different antidepressant. To report the prevalence and compare the characteristics of patients switching from their initial selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI/SNRI) to a new SSRI/SNRI versus those augmenting SSRI/SNRI therapy with a second-generation antipsychotic (SGA). MDD patients receiving first-line SSRI/SNRI treatment were identified from a large US-based claims database during 2000–2019. Patients augmenting therapy with an SGA were compared with those who switched to a new SSRI/SNRI. The date of the treatment change was the index date. Previously diagnosed comorbid conditions, medication use and demographics were captured. Treatment patterns following the index date were also captured. Standardized differences (StdDiff) were used to quantify dissimilarities between the two groups. There were 4572 SGA add-on and 24,409 switching patients identified. SGA augmentation patients had more severe disease (diagnosed severe recurrent major depression: 24.7% vs. 9.5%, StdDiff = 0.41) and more diagnosed psychiatric conditions, including: suicidal thoughts (10.7% vs. 3.2%, StdDiff = 0.29), post-traumatic stress disorder (6.1% vs. 2.6%, StdDiff = 0.17) and alcohol abuse (5.4% vs. 2.7%, StdDiff = 0.14). SGA augmentation patients had higher rates of prior use of anxiolytics (37.4% vs. 28.2%, StdDiff = 0.20) and anticonvulsants (26.0% vs. 13.1%, StdDiff = 0.33). Patients adding an SGA to their SSRI/SNRI therapy appeared to have more severe depression and comorbid psychiatric profile than those switching their SSRI/SNRI. These differences are important to consider and adequately control for in any future comparative outcome research between these two groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among patients with chronic pain using long-term opioid therapy, the incidence of opioid abuse, addiction, overdose, and associated death are not well quantified. The range of estimates for these adverse outcomes varies drastically and may depend on how they are measured (i.e. study definitions of outcomes) and on patient characteristics and opioid-use factors (e.g. regimen, daily dose).Methods: Based on a review of the literature, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required companies that manufacture and sell extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids conduct as a postmarketing requirement (PMR) a series of observational studies to estimate the rates of treatment-emergent misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose, and death using validated measures. The companies formed a consortium, the Opioid PMR Consortium (OPC), to conduct the studies.Results: The FDA initially requested four observational studies (a cohort study, a questionnaire validation study, a code validation study, and a doctor-shopping validation study), but in order to achieve the FDA's goals of the 4 studies, OPC and FDA agreed to 10 observational studies (a prospective cohort study, a retrospective database cohort study, three questionnaire validation studies, two code validation studies, and three doctor-shopping validation studies). The studies are continuing through 2020.Conclusions: A series of 10 observational studies was or are being conducted in response to the FDA's postmarketing requirement. All studies have been feasible to conduct, although a validated algorithm for measuring abuse and addiction in databases was not successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To quantify clinical and cost long-term outcomes in cardiovascular stable post-myocardial-infarction patients.Research Design and Methods: Subjects with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) who were 50-64 years old and MI- and stroke-free for ≥12 months (index date) were identified in a large US claims database. Individuals were followed for up to 5 years (mean: 2.0 years) after their index date.Main Outcome Measures: Rates of MI, stroke, all-cause death, and a composite of these were analyzed via Cox regression models, adjusted for covariates. Results are reported for the overall population and the subgroups of those with type 2 diabetes, additional prior MI, and non-end-stage renal disease. As a secondary endpoint healthcare costs were evaluated at baseline and during each year of follow-up. Results Over the follow-up period, which averaged 2 years, 7.6% of all 13,492 subjects (10.5% vs. 5.4% with and without the selected risk factors, respectively) experienced at least one of the outcome events. The cumulative incidence rates over the entire follow-up period for the primary composite outcome were 20.8% and 12.2% for those with and without the selected atherothrombotic risk factors, respectively. The cardiovascular-related per-person-per-year healthcare costs during follow-up were higher in those with ≥1 additional risk factor compared to those without: $15,247 versus $7521. Costs were elevated over baseline costs throughout follow-up.Limitations: Administrative claims data lack clinical detail. Generalizability of results is limited to the US commercially insured population of a similar age to that included in this study.Conclusions: High risk MI survivors who have been event free for ≥1 year remained at substantial risk of CV events and had increased healthcare costs for up to 5 years post-MI. These long-term risks have not been previously demonstrated in a working-age US population and suggest an unmet need for continuing secondary prevention long-term post-MI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare clinical characteristics, statin treatment patterns and adherence among patients at different risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) as defined by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines. Methods: Patients 18 years old with 1 claim for dyslipidemia, 1 statin claim, or 1 LDL-C value 100 mg/dL were identified from 1 January 2007 to 31 July 2012. Patients were classified as low risk (LR) (0–1 risk factor: hypertension, age 45 years [men] or 55 years [women], or low HDL-C), moderate/moderately high risk (MR) (2 risk factors), high risk (HR) (CHD or CHD risk equivalent), or very high risk (VHR) (acute coronary syndrome, or established cardiovascular disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome). Medication use and lipid levels during the 12 months before and statin use during the 6 months after index were compared across risk groups. Results: There were 1,524,351 LR, 242,357 MR, 188,222 HR, and 57,469 VHR patients identified. Statin use was observed in 15% of all patients, but was higher in the VHR group (45%) versus LR (12%), MR (18%), and HR (29%) groups. Simvastatin accounted for 50%–52% of all statin use, and average statin dose was higher among VHR patients compared with all other groups. Adherence was low overall (mean proportion of days covered [PDC]: 0.57), but higher among VHR (0.69) versus others (mean PDC: 0.55, 0.59, and 0.59 in LR, MR, and HR groups, respectively). Conclusions: Statin treatment was low across all risk groups, and VHR patients had higher doses and better adherence compared with other risk groups. However, adherence was not optimal, indicating a potential limited benefit from statin treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]